Vectra AI MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the return format (formatted string with specific fields), success case (host info), failure cases (no matches found), and error handling (raises exception). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Retrieve').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with three focused sentences: purpose statement, success return format, and two failure scenarios. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. Minor improvement could be merging the two failure cases into one sentence for even tighter structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains what the tool does, what it returns in different scenarios, and error behavior. For a simple lookup tool, this covers essential context, though it could briefly mention read-only nature or performance characteristics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete documentation for the single parameter 'host_ip'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid IP formats or edge cases), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Retrieve information') and target resource ('about a host entity by its IP address'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_host_details' (which likely uses different identifiers) and 'lookup_entity_info_by_name' (which uses names instead of IPs). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through the parameter specification (IP address lookup) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_host_details' or 'lookup_entity_info_by_name'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions beyond basic returns, or comparative advantages with sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.